>> take the guns away from crazy people. >> it's not a pleasant thing to talk about, but we have to. lou: it's interesting there's -- what's the clinical term for it? avoidance. we're not going to here. thank you, all, for being here and your perspectives. your comments now. doug wrote to say both parties, a disgraceful farce. shame on us and the media to allow them to continue the scam unchallenged. gary says "more stone walling on ben gi sai? we'll never know the truth, will we?" i think we will. it may take time, but we will. with us.l for us tonight. good night from new york. neil: wheeling and dealing, ad despite the shouting back and forth, that says a fiscal cliff deal is coming. that's the good news. now, the bad news. it won't remotely tackle spending of the it is not what
they are saying. it is what big spenders are promoting in a youtube video that's gone viral. i want you to ignore everything that you've been hearing out of washington today because i think at the end, it means nothing. focus on this video because i think it's going to tell you everything. take a look. >> to begin the benefit finder, first answer all of the nine simple core questions that are essential to narrowing you results. you will find a program description, general requirements, and your next steps on how nd where you can apply. receiving the latest benefit information has never been easier. we hope this tutorial helped you on your path to government benefits. neil: that's a youtube video on how you can log in to see how much the government can help you out. it's a menu for moreegovernment. benefits ala carte. after all, you're not paying for them. someone else is. now, we've given sheen to what amounts for government stuff.
it's sort of like that ad that ran earlier this year, the benefit to food stamps in a feel-good radio commercial that probably would have made norman rockwell proud. remember this? >> look at margie, she looks amazing. >> she sure does. >> i wonder how she stays fit. what the secret? >> well, she said food stam benefits help her eat right and stays active too. neil: if i knew that, i would get food stamps. we added a gloss, spending is not a vice, but a virtue. it's on a menu. forget pick your program. we do this, it's pick your poisen. why this promotion drives us towards a fiscal ditchand weber from the u.k. says this is all perfectly fine. you don't have a problem? >> they are bit like, today, actually, 150 federal agencies ready on youtube as part with u.
they are saying. it is what big spenders are promoting in a youtube video that's gone viral. i want you to ignore everything that you've been hearing out of washington today because i think at the end, it means nothing. focus on this video beause i think it's going to tell you everything. take a look. >> to begi the benefit finder, first answer all of the nine simple core questions that are essential to narrowing your relts. you will find a program description, general requirements, and your next steps on how and where you can apply. receiving the latest benefit information has never been easier. we hope this tutorial helped you on your path to government benefits. neil: that's a youtube video on how you can log in to see how much the government can help you out. it's a menu for moreegovernment. benefits ala carte. after all, youe not paying for them. someone else is. now, we've given sheen to what amounts for government stuff.
it's sort of like that ad that ran earlier this year, the benefit to food stamps in a feel-good radio commercial that probably would have made norman rockwell proud. remember this? >> look at margie, she looks amazing. >> she sure does. >> i wonder how she stays fit. what's the secret? >> well, she said food stamp benefits help her eat right and stays active too. neil: if i knew that, i would get food stamps. we added a gloss, spending is not a vice, but a virtue. it's on a menu. forget pick your program. we do this, it's pick your poisen. why this promotion drives us towards a fiscal ditch, and weber from the u.k. says this is all perfectly fine. you don't have a problem? >> they are bit like, today, actually, 150 federal agencies already on youtube as part of efficiency and government as it were, part of transparency.
fundamentally, as far as government goes, obama cut 600,000 jobs from federal government arriving 2009. this youtube progam i think is one of the reasons for doing that. government all arod the world use media in this way. neil: i want the 600000 jobs back and not worry about the trillions in deficit we incurred as a result, wouldn't you? >> well, yes, there has t be a shift on the view of americans on entitlements. there's fascinating research saying tt 53% of voters had used entitlements, and 59% of obama supporters used entitlements. there has to be a shift how americans think about entitlements, but a youtube channel will not change that. the most popular youtube channel? irs. youtube is actually helpful. neil: i worry about anything that makes it easier for you to get benefits from the government. i worry about it because ere was a woman on earlier on fox
news, gainfully employed, very successful. filled out everything, and she's eligible for two dozen different programs and enefits she was not aware o. that's a gainfully employed corporate woman. i guess what i'm asking, then, for those not in the lucky position, this could be a gold mine, and that worries me. >> it should worry us. the 53% and 59% number tha the other guest provided should set off alarm bells for us because that's all about creating dependency. when look at the youtube videos, it's obviously bad news if you're a taxpayer because you are financing this search for new government handouts and nw people to give them to. it should worry us if we care about the poor because the last thing we want is for them to be trapped in this government dependency that destroys lives and undermines families. more important, it's thesocial capital of the country.
the spirit of independence, self-reliance, self-worth, that's what's being destroyed when we tell everybody, hey, come on in, the water's fine. you know, mooch off the government. you know, it's the old partial about the frog, you put it i warm water, you can slowly turn up the temperature, a the frog cooks, but if you drop him in hot water,he hops right out. neil: i never tried that, i'm going to. >> i'm thinking of frog legs now. i'm in france. entitlement society, that is. neil: kidding. that says something about the society where we wouldth construct a model to get benefits rather than encourage a model or youtube site that encourages you to get off of the benefits. >> the worry to me is there's a washington post news poll saying over half of americans don't want entitlements like medicare, medicaid, and socl security to be touched. neil: when asked in the aggregate to address spending, they say yes. >> you're right. i come ffrom a country that's
dealt with deficit reduction or trying to, and we know, understand, it's all about shared sacrifice, which iss why car star you know bucks had a backlash in the u.k. because it was not paying corporate tax at all. americans need a shift, i guess, in the sensibility and change their minds, i guess, in the way british people had to. neil: notthat you're out of the woods yet. >>ot at all,. kneel noel i don't -- neil: i don'tsee the shft. even in the latest rumor fiscal cliff deal, more attention to how much taxes go up and who pays them, how much spending is cut, ad hose ox is gored. that's what worries me. >> the fiscal cliff deal, however it turns out, there's a safe prediction that it'll be a disaster. tax increases, empty vague promises of spending cuts really nothing more than reductions and planned increases, and even
those, when the dust settles will not be there. it'sad nes. we're, ineffect, traveling down the same mistaken path they go down in theu.k. because david cameron has been all about higher taxes, with promises of spending restraint in the future, spending oes up every single year in the u.k.. neither one of us as bad as france, so bad on taxes that the richest people and actors, all leaving the country because they don't want to get sucked into the raining and pillaging of the greedy government that exists there now. all we have to doto balance the budget is to simply retrain the growth of spending so it grows # 2.5% a year. all this fiscal cliff is about higher taxes to have spending grow faster. neil: what worries me isin the makeup of the package they ultimately produce. >> yeah. neil: will be like a dollar in spending cuts for a dollar in tax increases. that is not what was envisioned
in the beginning when it was $3 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. >> the's massive -- neil: four to one in spending cuts? >> to one pound in tax increases. there's been massive spending cuts in the u.k. across every single government department apart from health care and world aide so that's -- neil: even in your country, didn't they move the top tax rate down when they realized they went too far? 050%, back to 45%? >> the corporate tax rate has gone down. they increased the consumption tax. neil: the lesson to learn from the fine country -- >> too much too soon. neil: or too much attention to rising taxes. >> too much austerity too soon. >> i have to disagree. if you look at the actual year to year spending numbers, the government spending has gone up in the u.k. every sinle year. they are playing the same dishonest game we play in
washington to claim spending cuts -- claiming spending cuts -- neil: 2.5%, that's what this is -- we're not cutting anything in t country, justttrying to restrain how much more we keep increas government, and in britain, they've at least slowed the growth, have they not? >> they slowed the growth a bit, but tax increases, especially in the near term, have been the bigger share as composed to slowing growth of spending. there's promises which is what we get in the fiscal cliff whenever they announce the deal. there's promises, oh, in yers two, three, four, and ten, we restrain spending. i guarantee you, neil, i bet you dollars to donuts, so-called spending cuts, just reductions in increases are notgoing to happen. the politicians always do this thing. it's lucy holding the football, chlie brown kicks it, she yanks it away, and what happens? he winds up on the back, and in this analogy, the txpayer -- the republicans are charlie
brown because they are in this, but the txpayers lose. neil: i wonder why charlie brown never sued. final words? >> entitlements are bipartisan, has to be a bipartisan solution. neil: what? >> bipartisan. romney and obama supporters, everody has entitlements. neil: understood. thank you. meanwhile,after the shooting, indiscriminate firing, going after video games, tv show, and even commercials, anything where violent pops up, a call for the government to shut it own. ♪ ♪ [ engine revs ] ♪
neil: well, no sooner had news the connecticut school shooting hit, that out of nowhere, ads for tom cruise's latest movie disappeared, other movies as well. anything violent coming to the big screen sure as heck of nots showing up in promotionon the little screen, but i think it's %-politicians now targeting vido games that are already rated for
things like violence and, well, exxessive anything, even popular kids' websites reviewed with critics saying there's a fine line between free speech andriby that speech. rudy on whether we truly are overreacting. mayor, what do you think? >> we always overreact. that's kind of normal. you get a terrible incident, and everybody is seeking a simple solution to it, easy way to deal with it so everybody looks at whatever the favorite thing is whether it's gun control, mental illness, violence in the movies. i mean, look, i don't -- i've been in law enforcement most of my life and handled the hinkley case who tried to asassinate ronald reagan, and most thought it was because of jodi foster, his obession with her, and then he tried to do the same thing,,
theoretically that robert ei dinero in "taxi driver," i think somebody ho is mentally ill, it's too simple to say it's a movie that influenced them, or, in this case, if it was not for guns, he would have used a bomb or gases. this guy was a genius level mentally ill person. that's a very dangerous killer. everybody's going to seekthese kinds of answers, and, actuall, i don't know if it has much of a relationship with the particular murders, but a ittle less violence in our movies would be a great thing. some of the violence -- neil: that's a personal call and not a government -- should the government -- >> no, it shouldn't be the government. it should be -- neil: you're talking now as a parent. >> as a arent or the movies, should be art rather than ploitation. i mean, some of the -- we've gone so far over the top, it's like discussing, and the video games, having childrensitting
there killing this one and killing that one and this one, somebody promoting that? i mean, should e ashamed of themselves. neil: maybe that's what causing them to pull horns in a little bit, and pull advertisements. >> adertising, big deal, it's the movie, not the advertising. neil: this worriesme, and i'm not a fan of this, but i am for, you know, free expression, even violent expression sometimes, but what worries me and the folks about connecticut, if it makes one out of a hundred who see the movies or play uch games act them out potentially, then they should be banned or they should be reigned in. what do you say to them? >> i think the connection is not strong enough to have that infringement on free speech where the government can ban these things. to say, in a culture with so much violence is a bad thing in general. is a right thing, have voluntary estraints is a good thing. these people pulling back movies are basically people who are in
favor of severe gun control. arguably, their movies may have more of an impact than any form of gun or gun control. they are feeling a little b of the heat, maybe hypocritical which is is why they are pulling back. neil: what worries me after an incident like this, tragic as it is, mayor,s that we overreact with censorship to the point that it defeats what we are as a people. >> you know, i think we're going to calm down. by that, i mean, -- neil: a lot more incidents like this; right? do you, in your memory, mayor -- >> oh, no -- neil: the mall shooting, what do you think's going on? >> nothing like this one,neil. neil: you ow, what's going on? >> i read "the night before christmas" today, and it was the saddest, for me, did it now for 17 years in a row before christmas, and all i could do watching the children is thinking abt what happened in connecticut, and i've seen so many crimes, somany forms of murder. once prosecuted a guy, part a
mafia guy who chopped up bodies. i've seen horrible murder, terrorist murders. this iimpossible. it's i'll possible to comprehend how somebody could take a gun and shoot a 7-year-old. neil: the society, and maybe -- >> an innocent 7-year-old. neil: maybe we're to blame for it because of the violent movies. you don't think that's -- >> should we have less violence? absolutely. it would be a better society, yes. is that what created this guy doing this? it's deeper than that. it's deeper than that. it's harder to understand, and i do think thre's one mistake th we do make when we over simplify. we then come up with one little simple solution and think we solve the problem, and there's another one like it. this is very, very deep. want to know where to look for the answer? it's mental illness, how we deal with it, and it is some of the restraints we put on being able to intervene and getting people off the street when they should be off the street. it has to do with the
institutionazation, and never replacing that with enough treatment in society. i mean, probably that's where more of the answers lie than anything else. neil: one of the repor we got today, and i wan to switch to washington, mayor, is what may have precipitated this according to our folks at foxnews.com, is reports that the mother was ready to commit adam, the son who committed the crimes, and he got wind of i and exploded. we don'tknow. >> could be. it makes sense. we'll get a lot of other different things that sugest what happenedhere. the simple fact is that this is very, very complicated, and anybody offering simple answers is just going to perpetuate this. social security just goi to get -- it's just going to get worse. should people have these assault rifles? probably not a good idea for people to have asault rifles. i was in favor of the ban on assault weapo. i'd be in favor of it again. i think it stops this murder? absolutely, absolutely, 100% not. this kid would have found a way
to commit murder, no dobt about it. he was obsessed with the idea. he was very, very smart. he was very resourceful. if he didn't have a gun, he'd used something else. same thing with hinkley. if not "taxi driver" that caused it, something else would have did it. neil: switching gears ever so artfully to washington, boehner said, go ahead, let's vote on securing the taxes for everyone or the rates or everyone who dollars. there's already a revolt in the ranks about that the president says i'm not going further than $400,000. where do you think it's going in i he debate about the size of the tax hike rather than the ts. >> i heard the discussion, and there's an artic in the journal, i think'm right about this, risingax rates on millionaires and billionaires in england, and they are collecting less from them than the lower rate. some of this is stupid. we raised the capital gains tax
in america and collect ess money from the capital gains tax -- neil: if it is going to happen, at least, what? get balance in it? >> no. simple fact is john boehner has good answer. one answer is h's got t cave in, let the tax rates go up, minimize the damage, little as possible, and put responsibility on the president. if he -- if we go over the fiscal cliff, it's going to be blamed on him. neil: his way of saying it's noo on me now? >> i think that's where he's going. he's going to extract what cuts he can. they are bsurd. >> the president's failure to address spending cuts is a tragedy, a lack of leadership, and lack of understanding of the onomy. it's nothi to do with taxes. you can raise and lower taxes, not goingt impact on the deficit. actually, if you lower them intelligeny, you might grow the economy and maybe grow your way out of the deficit, but the fact is we have to restrain
spending, restrain spending by 10% or 15% a year, and until we do that, we're heading for a disaster. obviously, we're not going to do it. the president has no ability to control his party to do it. i don't think the president wants to do it. i mean, it's -- it'sa terrible, terrible mistake that we're going to see the results of three, four, five, six years from now, and the children will pay the price for a very, very long time. it's a president with no understanding of our economy, none. neil: all righh. we'll see what happens. mayor, thank you again. >> thank you. neil: as alts. -- as always. it's one to one now, and, by the way, that's if we're lucky. the senator who is no
revenue on the table if you were willinto put a tllion dollars of spending reductions on the table. that's, at this point, would be my version of a balanced approach. neil: not to be, it's $2 murks more than first proposed with the president. what he's trying to prove, of course, is he's the one making officers, not the president. it's the kind of offers the number one player in the house is making that has a very influential player worrying saying there's real concerns about the proposal. senator, welcome. i guess, first and foremost is the fact that right away, he's proposed revenues; right? >> well, the reality is that we need a $4 # trillion deal. we need meaniful tax reform, progrowth tax reforthat gets the economy going and growing. we need entitlement reform, and we need to find real savings. it needs to be on the order of
$4 trillion to get on top of the deficit and the debt and get our economy back on track. that's what we should be doing. the president is just not willing to engage in meaningf discussion of how we fin the kind of savings and the kind of rerms we need to really get the job done. neil: in other words, you're not opposed to revenue of a deal, but you want to see balanced out with spending cuts, and that part you have notseen? >> well, look, we understand there has to be revenues. speaker boehner has offered to close loopoles and to limit deductions, and the real revenue comes from growth, from economic growth. if it's not done right, and your economy doesn't grow, you don't gain revenue. neil: yeah, but he's not only -- he's going more than the deduction thing. he is saying for those million and up, back to the clinton era 39.6% rate. what do you think of that? >> right. well, neil, i think what he's trying to do now is show that
he's put revenue on the table, and the president has got to engage on the savings side, on controlling spending, and that's why he's continuing to make offers, and he even has a plan b to put in front of the house. we'll do everything to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, but the president has got to engage on the spending side of the equation and reform side, and he's not doing it. neil: you know what i read into this, senator? it coulbe boehner's way of saying if go over the cliff, it's not on my hands. i offered a proposal to go ahead and raise taxes against my better judgment and against my core being, inluding my core group of supporters' being to try to secure a deal so that if we do hit the cliff, evrything goes torpedoing, you can't blame me. what do you think of that? >> well, that's why you see the two-pronged approach.
on the one hand, he continues to make offers to the president to try to get meaningful reform and control of spending, but at the same time, he's saying he's going to put a plan in front of the house that makes sure we don't have tax rates go up on anybody that makes under a million dollars. i think he's trying every way he can to get a deal. neil: i think there's a good chance he loses the speakership for this, do you? >> well, i think, at this point, he's trying to get a deal. neil: i understand that, but he's taking tea party members off. is he in danger? what's the thoughts? >> well, not at this point. i think he is trying to show that the president has got to engage in this negotiation, and we're doing everything we can to avoid the fiscal cliff. neil: if you had your -- if you had revenues, saying earlier throug loopholes, that kind of thing, what would the ratio be
for you that would be acceptable? >> neil, remember back when speaker boehner and the president negotiated before, it was a $4 trillion deal with someere about $800 billion in revenue, and the speaker's come back saying, there it is. he's gone beyond that. again, he's showing president obama that deal was better than -- neil: three to one, and this is looking one-to-one, best case scenario. that's not progress. >> but, neil, a key point, remember revenue comesfrom economic growth, and he'll get revenue, not from higher taxes, but economic growth. that's not factored into the equation, whh is why, when you do that ratio, keep that many mind. very important part of it. neil: senator, thank you very much. go talking to you again. >> thanks, neil. neil: if a bird is killed sucked through a wind tunnel and no environmentalist sees it, did it happen? what if the same bird hits an oil rig and no environmentalist
sees it? how is that? well, it really did happen. what the flok is going on here? what the flok is going on here? ♪ you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast, long lasting relief, use doctor recommended gaviscon®. only gaviscon® forms a protective barrier that helps block stomach acid from splashing up- relieving the pain quickly. try fast, long lasting gaviscon®. can i still ship a gift in time r christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery.
neil: thrill, you can drill, use a wind mill, and it's a breeze. fining the company over the death ever mig story birds, and the company forced to donate to an environmental group, but when hundreds of song birds died in a west virginia wind farm, well, no punishment. a completely different tune. the wind farm just gets a pass.
the wind sector even has an exemption for prosecution under two wild life protection laws. david asman says, yet, another example ofgovernment hypocrisy. >> that's for sure. well, by the way, the president doesn't mind pissing off conservatives and republicans, but don't get the bird watchers wrangled. they will hound yo to death. the bi watchers a really upset. 500 song birds killed in west virginia at a wind farm in west virginia. neil: what were they doing? >> it's interesting. people thought they were chewed up by the blades. not so. they were trapped by the light's glare. they did circlinges ntil they dropped dead. if they were agas company, forget it, they would o hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, but because they are the president's preferred type of energy, zero. by the way, it's not just song birds killed, 2,000 eagles have
been killed by the windmills as well, and, again, if they were private sector, fine, pay the fines whatever, but they are money losing operation. they comback hat and hand, december 31st for another $3 billion subsidy, a one year extension of the $3 billion grant that they get for renewable service, and they are ner going to be profitable. these things not only ot profitable, but they lie about how many jobs they have created. they claim they created all of these thousands of and thousands of jobs, 7200 jobs r the one $4 billion wind program, 36 wind farms, and "wall street journal" found they only had 200 workers at the wind farms. they lie about h many workers they actually created. neil: trng to make it difficult for those that have anything to do with fossil fuels. >> of course. neil: use a little legal pain in the butt approach to say any
time a bird, you know, stumbles into a rig or god knows what else, lock them up in court. great success. >> guess what? who pays -- even if the wind farms paid for the birds, who would pay? us. we already pay. neil: they were not killed in one fell swoop, were they? >> it was a foggy night last year -- neil: 500? >> 500 in one shot. byhe way, exxon mobile, one of the companies paying a fine, they, in 2009,pleaded guilty to killing 85 birds and paid $600,000 fine. they are not insignificant fines they are excusedof. neil: govement deliberately looking away? >> absolutely. just shows thatthe president is always talking about fairness, you have to be fair. you have to be fair in taxes. you ave to be fair in energy subsidies. when the government decides who the winners and losers are, it's never fair.
it's always the government's preferred source whether it's a source of energy or an electric car, whatever it is, they are the ones that get the special deals. it's jusanother example of ththat just another example of government hypocrisy. do we need another one? folks, did you get the message yet? i would have hoped by now. neil: imagine what would happen to a canary in a coal mine. >> you had to go. these windmills are for th birds. i'll be amazed if we are on tomorrow night. yell lee birds cocoas and yellow bills. neil: it was theights? >> it was the lights. neil: meanwhile, you know, a week from today, christmas morning, forget i always wanted this, but it's more like, you wa fries with that? the three wiseman got to eat, but come on, mcdonalds, you say you have to feed them?
[kids talking atnce] [speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing] [heartbeat, music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that's the old me... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find out how it can help frontline health workers bring hope to millions of children at everybeatmatters.org.
neil: well, you know, come to think of it, nothing says christmas ike gathering around the tree, unwrapping presents, anthen, well, hitting the drive-thru,. that's what mcdonald's is counting on. after a memo, seeing how much money they made hand over first thanksgiving day, the company is pushing franhises to fire up fryers christmas day too. a move that is said could be greasy indeed. >> i think it's awful. i think it's awful they are opening on christmas day, and i think it's awful that walmart opened on thanksgiving.
i feel bad for the owners and workers flipping burgers instead of opening presents, rather than eating christmas ham, it's a burger. neil: depends on whether the faly has good cooks, you know? >> that's true too. the founder, ray crock, who founded mcdonalds said no working on thanksgiving or christmas day and wanted the workers to be with their families, and essentially, what you are seeing is a new ceo coming in, he's under intense pressure from competition. this is don thompson, who joined in july, and he's saying, look, our same store sales up 9%, holy cow, stocks not doing well, sales were not doing great, and, you know, a multiyear low in october, bam, noember happens, thanksgiving, you know, great sales, we got to open for christmas. i think that's the logic there. neil: they can encourage franchises to do this, they
decide themselves, but like any business, they like t make money. they are going to push it. >> that's right. they are going to push it. when the company says, look, we made $55 # -- 5500 average per restaurant, they will have to open. growing up, i loved that all the stores were closed an only the gas station s open on christmas day. neil: that means you actually enjoyed your family. >> yes. neil: i think they stumbled upon something, all the retailers and all, made a ton of money, like fool's gold. it is llke the airlines thahat nickeled and dimed us on the blanket, the soda, the peanuts, nickel and dime and everything and make billions. now, thht's the way we've gone. >> i wound -- i wonder, too, i know they made a lot of money on thanksgiving, but do they make money from or from the bacon cheese onion burgera great sale item or the
breakfast items? what's the tradeoff? yes, one day of being open, but do you mak more money with great items on the menu to beat the competition? wendy's is not opening christmas day, which is interesting. neil: they are no mcdonalds. >> you're right. neil: they draw the line. >> taco bell drawing lines too, limited openings. i don't know, it's awful. just stay home. be with the family. neil: way of the world. >> it is. it's unfortunate. reminds me, sad disspiritted, loanny guy in the diner, yo know, at night with the waitress, rather than the nice norman rockwell painting home with the family. what a great squad you have. then the other thing, too, is the mcdonald's risk being called mcscrouge? there's union protests, which i doubt they will.
unions protestedwalmart, but i don't see the fast food chains getting protested. neil: get anything special for being there? >> i don't know the details on that, but workers and the owners y, wait a second, do we want to work christmas day? they are the ones who bring in revenue. they say to themselves, what's the tradeoff? do we want them to work christmas da tough for theeoperators. neil: it is. thank you very much. >> sure. neil: we just don't go there. no matter how much you hate the inlaw's food, don't go there, but if it is open, you might as well. anyway, when we come back, smile, i just put your picture up on instagram, and guess what in there's not a damn thing you in there's not a damn thing you can do about it, or is ♪ music
media, and the language was there, and i'm very happy that people spoke out, which they use through social media, by the way, changingthat language because how are you going to go around to millions of 13, 14, and 15-year-olds to ensure you have connt to utilize their pictures. neil: i don't know if the compy's done that, and i worry about those who aren't members of instagram, an you take a picture of me, and it's on instagram, and i didn't do it, but i see my picure there, and they have rights to it. i didn't sign off on it at all. >> absolutely. that's the general rights we're talking about, glad they modified some of the language. it'll be interesting to see what the final language will be come january 2013, but what does social media in general, no longer a cycle we've employer
and employee, and the consumer. the consumer has general say in what the employee does, and that's where i think this concept of social media in the economy is integrating because now mark zuckerberg had a billn dollar company, now publicly traded, not doing as well as everyone expected. this is prior to he billion llar purchase of instagram. neil: it's doing better. i know what he's up to here, trying to find a way to leverage those, you know, gazillion users, making money from them. >> absolutely. neil: i orry beca selling the pricier stock, apparent selling data on the customers that are part of the company, and part of the service, and i worry that even if he's chasing here, he'll find creative ways to get it elsewhere. >> well, and he will, but ere's one basic con cement -- concept dealing with human
beings, just ask. there are people who wll opt into programs like advrtising and uses of their pictures. there are people that want everybody in the world to see what they post and who they post for that matter. have it be an opt-in and making that person liable for which they post which they do now, meaning yo picture is not posted without your consent, but everybody else'spictures -- neil: i don't know at that's the deal, referring to the picture you took of me, i don't know that's the deal. assume it is, and i hope you're right, by the way, on that, but apparently, people told me it's in the fine print. i don't know, you get a new computer, do you agree to this? it's like 14 pages o single space, 18 point copy you have to read and agree to, and it says you agree to give your first child away to us, and all of that, and you agree so you go ahead and use the thing. apparently, this was in the agreement with using instagram people signed to when they signed into instagram. it makes people think twice
about what they sign on to; right? >> well, absolutely. it's just a one-click accept which is why i mentioned earlier on about the children, the children are clicking one button exposing themselves to an entire world. we need to really take a look at social media and how we are going to integrate that into society and into the economy for that matter because it is just a one-click process with no eans to ensure that our children are not being exposed to things we don't want them exses the to when utilizing applications like simple as instagram. neil: more than just children. i wonder if part of way we sacrifice in the age of social media, technology, and sending pictures and data and e-mails and texts back and forth is our privacy. that's just part of the game. >> it is a part of the game, unfortunate truth with the global economy and global everything now, and it's something that people in general should probay sit down and discuss. neil: yeah. >> whether it be with your representatives or with your families because there are just certain things that should
remain private for obvious reasons. there's a reason why there's a constitutional amendment for that, and mabe we should look at that before redoing terms and conditions that people are just clicking on to. neil: not a bad at all. thank-- not a bad at idea at all. >> thank thank you. neil: remember the wimpy character in "popeye"? >> i'll have hamburger which i'll glad you pay you tuesday. neil: he always seems to get the burger. did he ever pay for it? why i suspect a lot of wimpy policians are pulling the same charade.
i think we will avoid. i don't like the way to avoid it with the promise resolution. just like cutting back on spending in the new year this is our will do it. like promising to cut back on eating and working out more. i made a lot of these. look at me. you see much progress? i can save you the trouble. they sound good but workout bad. maybe it is in my charr